The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution provides “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The amendment, which has stood since its ratification in 1791, has been open to much controversy over the course of the past 213 years, but intensified debates regarding its protection arose in 1994 after the authorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Many pro-gun activists argued that such a measure, which prohibited the sale and distribution of 19 military style weapons, was unconstitutional and violated the rights of American gun owners. On September 13, a decade after the ban’s introduction, such complaints were silenced as Congress allowed the measure’s deadline to pass without a vote of reauthorization. Now, new concerns have arisen as to whether the streets are safe with such powerful and dangerous weaponry back on the market.

It is absurd for one to assume that the end of the ban will produce a noticeable increase in the amount of violent crimes in the United States. The truth is that many firearm related crimes are carried out with easily concealable handguns, not military grade assault rifles. Despite what even the most ardent gun control supporter may believe, there are no droves of trigger happy maniacs purchasing mass quantities of previously banned weaponry simply because the governmental restrictions on them have been lifted. The fact of the matter is that the majority of these weapons have been available to the public over the past decade, as the ban only forbade weapons from containing cosmetic and ergonomic features that would present a military like presence. Elements such as folding stocks, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, high capacity magazines and other combat implements were not permitted because they were not seen as attachments necessary to a civilian firearm. In essence, the federal restriction was a placebo, or feel good act that instated a false sense of security within the American public.

Exactly what constitutes an assault grade weapon? Characteristics such as a higher rate of firepower, larger ammunition capacity, and higher muzzle velocity contrast it from most normal civilian rifles and handguns. The 9mm Tec-9, a gun used in the Columbine High School shooting, as well as the Bushmaster XM-15 (civilian version of the Colt M-16), the rifle favored by beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, are both examples similar to assault style weapons. The guns were toned down to the specifications of the ban, but they certainly demonstrated an ability to kill innocent people. Whether a gun is used by the military or not has no effect on its lethality. All bullets share the potential to cause death, no matter what barrel they are fired from.

Many gun control advocates insist that by allowing assault weapons to be legal once again, Congress and the Bush Administration have made the goals of criminals and terrorists easier to attain. I do not wish to seem offensive, but it’s time for a wake up call. To aggressors, gun laws makerelatively no difference in the availability of weapons. The black market thrives regardless of what security measures are made to restrain it, and the fact that armed robberies, hijackings, and homicides still occur within our society support the statement. If one wishes to obtain a weapon and he is willing to pay the required price, no governmental function has the ability to stop the purchase indefinitely.

The ban’s expiration is not expected to produce a widespread surge in firearm sales. With few exceptions, assault style weapons are sought mainly as collectible items and not used by hunters or criminals due to their relative bulk and unwieldiness. Another point of comfort for the worrisome rests in the continuation of a 1989 firearm ban that forbids the importation of fully automatic foreign weapons such as the Israeli 9mm Uzi, and the Soviet built AK-47. Additionally, the Brady Handgun Violence Act of 1993, which requires a background check of every gun purchaser, still remains in effect, and therefore is posing a limiting factor, however effective, on the possibility a gun falling into the proverbial wrong hands.

In his 2002 documentary movie, Bowling for Columbine, filmmaker Michael Moore sought reasoning for America’s seemingly endless love affair with firearms. While a satisfying answer to such a question may never be provided, perhaps I can offer some personal insight. As a history aficionado, I have come to understand the influential role that guns have played in the shaping of our national history. I am not proclaiming myself to be a gun fanatic, but I am admitting that the mechanics and uses of firearms in historical conflicts interest me. It cannot be denied that the primary function of a gun is to kill, whether it is an animal or human being, but if used responsibly, firearms can also be enjoyed by hunters, collectors, and sports shooters alike.

Now that the expiration date of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban has come and gone, many states, including Ohio, are making strides to enact firearm limitations of their own. Such actions may help a state’s residents to feel more at ease, given the turbulent nature of modern society, but such legal boundaries will ultimately have little effect on the amount and variety of weaponry being exchanged in the arms market. Comedian Chris Rock once suggested that gun control would be much more effective if each bullet cost a thousand dollars. That way if a person got shot, he or she must have deserved it. As cynical as such a proposition seems, Rock may have made a valid point.

Though the legislative decision regarding assault weapons may seem far removed to the Roosevelt student body and faculty, the fact of the matter is that such a decision affects us all. It is undeniable that firearms of all sorts are readily available to the general public whether they are purchased from Wal-Mart or a specialty shop. Due to such abundance, it is the civil duty of each and every gun owner, no matter what age or level of expertise, to demonstrate responsibility with his or her weaponry. The Second Amendment of the Constitution does indeed guarantee the right to bear arms, but such a privilege is only relevant until it begins to infringe upon the rights of others.